The Shape of Advertising Response Functions Revisited: A Model of Dynamic Probabilistic Thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior work in marketing has suggested that advertising threshold effects—levels beneath which there is essentially no sales response—are rarely encountered in practice. Because advertising policies settle into effective ranges through early trial and error, thresholds cannot be observed directly, and arguments for their existence must be based primarily on a "statistical footprint," that is, on relative fits of a range of model types. To detect possible threshold effects, we formulate a switching regression model with two "regimes," in only one of which advertising is effective. Mediating the switch between the two regimes is a logistic function of category-specific dynamic variables (e.g., order of entry, time in market, number of competitors) and advertising levels, nesting a variety of alternative formulations, among them both standard concave and S-shaped responses. A sequence of comparisons among parametrically related models strongly suggests: that threshold effects exist; that market share response to advertising is not necessarily globally concave; that superior fit cannot be attributed to model flexibility alone; and that dynamic, environmental, competitive, and brand-specific factors can influence advertising effectiveness. These effects are evident in two evolving durables categories (SUVs and minivans), although not in the one mature, nondurable category (liquid detergent) studied.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".